feplus
-
Posts
510 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by feplus
-
-
@Snowy: You should be cautious in describing intellectual pursuits as "useless." Many degree options are financially unwise, but any discipline contributes to our total understanding of the world in some way.
@Phoenix: What are your thoughts on "safe spaces" / support groups that exclude minorities? Presumably you think it's acceptable to have a no-whites safe space; what about a no-blacks safe space?
-
Has anyone in this thread argued that "soft" degrees aren't of intellectual importance? I must have missed it.
-
Re-read the opening post again. Its entire purpose is to draw connections between the data and my personal observations.
You are free to accuse me of being a nostalgist, but this is a lazy approach. Any criticism of the current generation could be framed that way. It's unproductive.
And smug faces? I'm asking people to remain civil, stay on-topic, and make sound arguments. That's not smug.
-
@dondon: I could report you for hostility, but I worry the moderators would remove your delectable post. Are you genuinely under the impression that philosophy is not a profitable degree? Are you incapable of a brief Google search?
My opening post has plenty of sources. It is reasonable to expect those who challenge it to provide sources in return.
-
@Rehab: You are obviously passionate about this topic being a non-issue. I invite you to explain why with specifics and evidence.
-
"Atheist" does not perfectly describe atheists. What kind of atheist are you? Are you an ignostic? Are you a skeptic? Do you believe there are strong positive reasons to reject God's existence?
I no longer have any idea what you're trying to accomplish here beyond contrarianism.
-
The purpose of labels is not to perfectly characterize everyone within that label.
1. Labels help with succinct communication.
2. Labels are a good starting point for observing group trends.
I already said this. eclipse doesn't like labels because he wants to preserve individuality. But everyone fits roughly into labels, voluntary and involuntary ones.
Labels are imperfect. Labels serve a useful purpose. A strong aversion to labels indicates something distinctly millennial about a person's psychology.
-
Some labels are more vague than others, but I'd argue this has to do with some labels being more encompassing than others.
Political labels can be unambiguous. If I say I am pro-choice, you get a very good sense of what I mean. That's because the possible meanings of "pro-choice" are small. A label like "conservative" is broader. It's one word that suggests how you think about dozens and dozens of issues.
I didn't respond to your previous post because I didn't take much issue with it. Labels are definitely imperfect. But they have a clear usefulness. More importantly, I suspect a strong aversion to labels indicates something about a person's psychology, that they want to preserve a misguided sense of individuality.
-
@Chiki: One day we'll agree about something. One day.
There is no analogy issue because I did not say all labels are similar in all respects. I made a clear distinction between descriptive labels (millennial, baby boomer, atheist, liberal, etc.) and denigrating labels (slurs and the like).
eclipse thinks labels are bad. I explained why labels are not bad. Your point- that some labels are voluntary and some are not- is trivially true and misses the purpose of the argument.
@Hoshi: All denigrating labels are descriptive; not all descriptive labels are denigrating. Think squares and rectangles.
@Rapier: You illustrate a common way labels are misused. As I argued previously, this is a problem with prejudiced individuals rather than labels themselves.
I wouldn't call myself a Continental conservative. I'm a fairly boiler-plate American Christian.
-
Denigrating labels aren't the topic of conversation. Descriptive labels are. Labels that describe a belief structure.
-
I'm compelled to turn away from the monitor every five seconds, but looking at those previews I'm not seeing much in the way of combat mechanics. Seems incredibly standard. Attack, items, skills, the nine yards. Am I missing something?
-
I've played a bit of II. While what I played was good, I definitely would not recommend it as one's first Megami Tensei game. Nocturne or IV would be a better introduction.
Soul Hackers would also be good If you want gameplay similar to II.
I started with SMTI, a much less intuitive game, and got along fine.
I guess it depends on how familiar the original poster is with Japanese RPGs.
-
It is unrealistic (and indulgent) to expect people to infer your snowflake life views from shopping mall conversations and soliloquies. If I asked you about your political views, you could opt for two approaches:
1. Explain in great detail precisely what you believe. This will take time. I may or may not read it all.
2. Assign a label to your world view, and mention any major departures from the mold. This takes little time. I will definitely read it all.
That's the communicative benefit of labels. The other relevant fact is that, like it or not, you do conform to labels. Not perfectly, but by-and-large. We all do. Denying this truth suggests you really want to preserve some misguided sense of individuality.
All of your examples speak to prejudices. To repeat myself a third time, that is not a problem with labels themselves; it is a problem with the immaturity of certain people.
-
Who said anything about mindless labels?
What are the "bad qualities" of descriptive labels (eg. Christian, atheist, liberal, conservative)? While there are prejudices and stereotypes associated with labels- conservatives are callous, liberals are naive- that's a problem with those interpreting the label rather than with labels themselves.
Labels have a useful function: succinct communication of beliefs. They're also a useful starting point for observing group trends.
-
Aversion to labels is a quirk of millennials I forgot to mention in my original post, so kudos for reminding me.
What's wrong with a label? If someone describes me as a political conservative, I don't mind. That's not to say I fit the mold perfectly, but on more issues than not it's a fair description. And while there are prejudices and stereotypes associated with labels- conservatives are callous, liberals are naive- that's a problem with those interpreting the label rather than with labels themselves.
Yet we see millennials shun generalizations all the time. Not Christian, but spiritual. Not conservative or liberal, but moderate. Not American, but cosmopolitan. Not straight or gay, but [insert invented gender].
Millennials don't want to box themselves in. Labels strip away their individuality, neatly classify their belief structures. It doesn't matter that labels apply to them as much as they apply to anyone else; the mere possibility of losing uniqueness is intolerable. Not a snowflake, but a special snowflake.
I find the trend insufferable.
-
But God told my neighbor the opposite. Why trust your holy spirit transcription over his?
i typo'd isn't -> is in my previous post.
I don't know what this means.
-
I will define "millennial" as any person living in the West who reached adulthood between the years of 1990 and 2010.
Here is a piece from NPR summarizing millennial trends. On the whole, they are:
* better educated
* marry later in life
* marry less often
* more likely to be unemployed
* more likely to be in debt
* more likely to be dependent (eg. living with parents)
* more likely to be unskilled, despite their high levels of education
Many, many criticisms of the millennial generation have been penned in recent years. An example here. Common charges are that millennials are narcissistic, entitled, and emotionally brittle, unable to handle criticism.
This topic explores whether or not you find this characterization accurate. Most of us here will either be millennials or right on the outside looking in, so it's personally relevant.
---
Myself, I find criticisms of millennials to be absolutely on-point. Some will accuse me of being a nostalgist, but there are concrete things that separate our generation from previous ones.
Most obvious is the rise of the internet and social media. This leads to more frequent, but also more superficial, social interaction. Because face-to-face communication is rarer, people do not develop the interpersonal skills they need. It also emphasizes the importance of image over substance; better to appear a certain way than actually be that way.
Second is how our generation was victim of a relentless self-esteem campaign. The Everyone Gets A Trophy movement was, I think, deeply damaging. We were coddled, told we were snowflakes; no one limited our ambitions or gave us a realistic depiction of the world. "You can do anything!" is an attitude that, ironically, has led many millennials to doing nothing.
It also explains our generation's general aversion to criticism and reluctance to pursue profitable career choices. Think about the rise of safe spaces, trigger warnings, and softly enforced thought crimes. These have been introduced under the guise of tolerance, but they're more likely a means of protecting millennials from uncomfortable challenges. Here's a good article on the subject. And the false belief that the world is everyone's oyster leads people to spend hundreds of thousands on degrees like sociology, anthropology, women's studies, and other "soft" disciplines. Admirable pursuits, but not financially viable for most.
Thirdly, we live in the wake of the Cultural Revolution and are suffering its consequences more than any prior generation. The reason superficial irreligiosity and casual sex are on the rise (and marriage is on the decline) is a byproduct of mixing radical new social norms with millennials' narcissism and hedonism. Tinder and Grindr are applications designed to bypass inconvenient personal interaction and get to the good bits with naughty bits. It's embarrassing. New Atheism has carved out a sizable space in public consciousness despite being ridiculed even by atheist philosophers.
Why? What explains all this? Seems to me that our generation is defined by shallowness. Shallowness with regards to personal relationships, spirituality, commitments, job prospects, and our entitlements. I am very concerned.
---
Although that's one man's opinion. Please share your own.
-
Nocture is widely regarded as the high point in the series.
But I would personally recommend SMTII. There is a solid fan translation out there, and the game is the complete package. Terrific music, great story, grotesque enemy designs, robust moral choices, emphasis on exploration, and high challenge.
-
That's FE1 Tiki. She actually was young.
While true, let's be honest with ourselves. Tiki is of legal age while looking and acting like a child. Nowi is of legal age while looking an acting like a child.
Remember how tastelessly Nowi was designed and implemented? Remember how Nowi catered to the "loli" crowd in a way FE1 Tiki or FE8 Myrrh didn't? Now imagine what SMTxFE Tiki will bring us. This is an M-rated game. A game with overt sexualization. A game that shows off panty shots in its introductory trailer. A game that panders to anime fans.
I hope you're ready for Nowi cranked up to 11.
-
I am surprised you consider this "evasive" or "mysterious." It is clear and succinct:
Nowhere is the Dilemma presented as a "problem" for DCT except in relation to some desirable (eg. non-arbitrariness).
I am asking for examples where this is not the case. Every link you've posted so far fits this description to the letter. I even went to the trouble of quoting your links and showing how, specifically, they fit that description.You are focused on the titles of these papers while I am focused on the content. -
My previous post was short apart from the quotes. "Wall of text" is an exaggeration. I try to be pithy.
Arbitrariness is not a problem for DCT. It is a problem for those who want to embrace DCT and want God's will to be non-arbitrary. I addressed this earlier:
"So who is the Dilemma a problem for?... It is a problem for those who are debating the merits of DCT and find the arbitrariness concession unpalatable. It is a problem for those who profess DCT with ignorance (i.e. they do not understand the full implications of the position). But it is not a problem for DCT itself."
Every link you have posted reaffirms this. Nowhere is the Dilemma presented as a "problem" for DCT except in relation to some desirable (eg. non-arbitrariness).
-
Just trying to explain the backlash you got.
I appreciate it. I am condescending and critical, and people are free to dislike that about me.
-
I have no idea what you're apologizing for or what mistake you made.
It is entirely within Nintendo's power to get the game localized in 2015. If they really wanted, they could localize the game in a few months. But they choose not to because that would be more expensive.
Fire Emblem fans are deprived of a quicker release so Nintendo doesn't have to spend as much on localization costs. That's a reasonable thing to be annoyed about.
-
@Chiki
I assume you read the .pdf files you posted. I did. Let me again quote myself:
"Solutions" to the "problem" are, in every case, ways to reconcile DCT with some other desirable (eg. non-arbitrariness).
This has been my position from the first post in this exchange. Please tell me which of your .pdf files disagrees with my conclusion. You trust the word of analytic philosophers, right?
First link: He could, for example, have commanded polygamy, slavery, and the killing of the over-50s. If divine command theory is true, then had he done so then these things would be morally good. That doesn’t seem right, though; even if God had commanded these things they would still be morally bad.
Second link: DCT is thus a kind of moral relativism: what's right or wrong is what one's God (like one's self or one's society) says is right or wrong--and there are no moral standards apart from this... If there is no standard of "being morally right" apart from God's commands, then God could literally command us to do anything and it would be right for us to do it by definition.
Third link: ...if God’s commands make right actions right, and there is no standard of morality independent of God’s commands, then that seems to make morality arbitrary. Thus, murder is not wrong because it harms someone unjustly, but merely because God forbids it...
All agree with me. In every case, the "problem" is not with DCT, but with reconciling DCT with other desirables. As in your previous post, you continue to reinforce my position.
I wouldn't defend that Continental quote because it's stupid. Continental philosophers sometimes argue stupid things. Analytic philosophers sometimes argue stupid things.
@dondon
I don't believe "logical DCT" is a thing. Regardless, it turns out that God told my neighbor your assessment of my argument was utterly incorrect. I suppose the will of God changed overnight!
Too bad. Hopefully God will communicate with you again, this time giving you some reasons for believing what you believe that you can share with all of us. I look forward to it.
You also do not know what "sound" means. If an argument is sound, everyone would take it seriously because it would be true.
Let's talk about millennials.
in Serious Discussion
Posted
I understand the logic behind safe spaces. You want to deal with difficult issues by talking to people who can personally relate with those struggles. The advice of an "outsider" is less insightful and so less valuable.
But I'd rather us trend towards inclusivity. I am a minority in many respects, and I would not mind in the slightest for a person in "the majority" to offer me advice. You don't always need personal experience with an issue to make a contribution.
My main gripe, however, is that "safe space" is so often a euphemism for "echo chamber."